1 2026:CGHC:16914 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1218 of 2025 • Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Office At Gurudwara Road Durg, Parakh Chomplex, Near State Bank, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Non-Applicant No. 3), (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Sushila Yadav W/o Shri Gajanand Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Gaurinagar Ward No.-12, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, (Applicant), (Claimant). 2. Shyam Choubey S/o Vishnuprasad Choubey Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Driver, Car No. C.G. 07 B.E. 0217, R/o Street No. 4, Shanti Nagar, P.S. - Kotwali, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, (Non- Applicant No. 1), (Driver). 3. Pravir Mohan Singh S/o Dharamsingh Rajput Occupation - Vehicle Owner, Car No. C.G. 07 B.E. 0217, R/o Laxmi Printing Press Street, Pachripara, Ward No.-28, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Non-Applicant No. 2), (Owner). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinor Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company, challenging the impugned award dated 01.01.2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No.122/2022. 3. There is an I.A. No.2/2025, application for condonation of delay of 425 days’ in filing the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after passing of the impugned award, the T.P. Cell Office of the appellant received the copy of the award and was sent for further opinion to the panel advocate of the High Court. After receipt of the opinion, the file was sent to the Regional Office for approval. Thereafter, after getting appropriate approval, file was again sent to the T.P. Cell Office and in this process delay of 425 days’ occurred in filing the appeal. Thus, delay may be condoned. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that there is a delay of 425 days’ and the reasons, which have been assigned would not amount to sufficient cause to condone the delay. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Though, the appellant has taken a ground that on account of administrative proceedings, delay had occurred. This Court is not impressed with the grounds raised in the delay application, thus, I.A. No.2/2025, application for condonation of delay of 425 days’ in filing the appeal is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 8. Even otherwise, the appeal is filed on the ground that offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective permit and fitness, this plea has also been taken by the insurance company in its written statement. On perusal of the impugned award, it appears that no witnesses were examined. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal also. 3 9. Consequently, I.A. No.2/2025, application for condonation of delay of 425 days’ in filing the appeal as well as appeal on merits are hereby dismissed. 10. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Deepti Jha